Unfortunately you’ve used all of your gifts this month. Your counter will reset on the first day of next month.
Does it matter to the victim of a violent crime how old the person was when they committed that crime? Does it matter to the family of a murder victim whether the teenage murderer’s brain was fully developed at the time? Does it matter to a rape victim whether the person who destroyed her life was under 18 or over 18?
Should an adult prison inmate who committed a brutal crime as a youth be able to claim immaturity as a legitimate reason to be released early from a lengthy prison sentence?
Those are questions the state Parole Board should be thinking about as they consider a proposal to modify a rule regarding how the board determines the parole eligibility for an adult prisoner serving a maximum sentence of life for a crime they committed when they were under 18.
The new rule would require the Parole Board to consider placing “great weight” on the “distinctive attributes of childhood” and “heightened capacity for change” in making parole-related decisions.
Such “minor offender” characteristics include diminished culpability compared to adults; the ongoing development in a youth’s psychology and brain function; the impact of a youth’s negative, abusive environment or circumstances; the youth’s limited control over their environment; and the limited capacity of youths to remove themselves from a crime-producing environment.
The “hallmarks of youth” that parole boards would have to consider include immaturity, an underdeveloped sense of responsibility, impulsivity, difficulty with future planning, increased vulnerability to negative influences, recklessness and risk-taking, and limited ability to appreciate the consequences of their behavior.
We’re in favor of changes to the criminal justice system that ensure justice and fairness — particularly factors that result in discrimination based on race, poverty level, mental health and youth.
But under these proposed rule changes, any crime committed by a youth — no matter how heinous or deliberate — could be justified and excused by virtually every characteristic or factor of influence experienced by a typical kid.
We’re not talking about starting high school later because brain development limits how well teenagers can learn in the morning. We’re talking about releasing a convicted murderer or sexual offender prior to their court-imposed life sentence because kids are immature and impulsive.
The time for these factors to be considered is during the trial and at sentencing, when a judge, jury and youth services officials can consider age-appropriate consequences for a crime. It’s not when a violent teenager has been indoctrinated into the adult prison system for 20 or 30 years.
There are legitimate reasons to grant an offender parole, even a violent offender. But they should be narrow, well defined and consistent with the individual and the nature of the crime.
— To comment on these proposed changes, email: [email protected] by Oct. 12.
Read more on The Daily Gazette
